From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Feb  9 14:22:44 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA18920
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:22:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18912
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA21608; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:21:50 -0800
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 1996 09:13:01 MST."
             <199602091613.JAA10469@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 14:21:50 -0800
Message-ID: <21606.823904510@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> I think that *not* requiring the implementation of the persistance
> facility (think netbooting, again) prior to deployment of a mandatory
> devfs is a *major* incentive to cause the feature to be added by the
> people who feel they need it.  The lag on the developement of the
> ability to save "boot -c" data after "boot -c" was implemented was not
> an inherently bad thing.

But -c was never a critical part of the system, and certainly not
*mandatory*.  I remain unconvinced by your arguments, I'm afraid.

I don't think that devfs should ever be *mandatory* until the current
semantics, which are known even if not necessarily loved by a
generation of UNIX hackers, are preserved.  Let's make it optional,
sure, but mandatory?  In its proposed form?  You've got to be
kidding.

					Jordan